this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
184 points (96.9% liked)

World News

38554 readers
2654 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] osarusan@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)
[–] DCLXVI@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Just that the "arguments" and wording of these comments read very autistic, not just your own.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't really know what that means... It's just a really weird thing to comment on a post. Even if I were autistic, how would that matter and what effect would it have on the discussion?

[–] DCLXVI@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The way you focus on concepts like empiricism, nihilism, solipsism, other isms, instead composing a straightforward reply that is to the point comes across autistic. The other guy's doing the same so maybe it's just typical conversation on here.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

A straightforward reply wouldn't work in this situation because OP did not make a straightforward comment. So we use those terms because they are rhetorical terms that describe the techniques the original poster was using. It's easy for someone like OP to make a dishonest argument and mask it as an honest one, so we are calling him out on that dishonesty by showing the flawed arguments for what they are.

I think it's not something typical of conversation here, but it is typical of rhetorical conversation, and you'll hear this kind of speech whenever people discuss logical and rhetorical arguments.